[Update: During a disastrous post-Newtown press conference this morning in D.C., exactly one week after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, the NRA's CEO and Executive Vice President (and chief liar) Wayne LaPierre said: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." More on that presser now here, but the following article, published prior to the NRA debacle today, goes a long way towards pre-bunking LaPierre's main contention.]

There have been a lot of absurd claims by the folks scammed by the NRA racket into believing that nothing can be done to decrease gun violence following last week's horrific mass shooting in Newtown, CT.

(Our personal favorite was the one that failed the quickest: The claim that the stabbing of 20 school children in China on the very same day as the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre proves that putting responsible limitations on gun and high-capacity magazine ownership won't help stop these types of tragedies. The reason that response failed so quickly? The wingnuts using it apparently failed to read the actual China story to learn that none of the children there were actually killed in that attack.)

The excuse for taking no action in the wake of Newtown which has had the longest shelf life to date, seems to be the notion that if only someone in the school --- or in the movie theater, or in the shopping mall, or in the Sikh temple, etc. --- had been armed, the tragedy would have been averted.

If more law abiding responsible people had concealed carry permits and were able and willing to use their firearms when necessary, how many of you anti-gun nuts really believe he would have gotten off more than one or two shots in a school?

Setting aside his obvious strawman --- folks like us are no more "anti-gun nuts" than the vast majority of NRA members (if not their con-man leadership) who agree we should have increased gun safety regulations --- JPack80's thin argument, and the millions of other wingnuts making the same weak case, is quickly debunked by a few fairly easy to understand points. (There are many more, but we'll stick to two for the moment, since some folks making this case may have trouble counting higher than that.)

First, how many shots did the Fort Hood shooter get off when he opened fire --- killing 13 and wounding 29 others --- in the middle of a U.S. Army base, filled with people carrying loaded weapons and many more with easy access to them? (Answer: About 200 rounds, which also included shoot-outs with two armed officers, the first of which was hit three times before she went down. But, see update below for additional thoughts on this.)

It is also true that both Columbine and Virginia Tech had armed security officers on campus, as little good as that did anybody, during the mass shootings there. Let's also not forget the trained New York City police who attempted to stop a gunman at the Empire State Building over the summer. They ended up shooting nine (9) innocent bystanders in the bargain.

But the more damning response to the foolish point that "more people with guns are the best way to stop mass shootings" is found in this 2009 ABC video showing how people with guns, and training, actually react when confronted by something like a sudden, surprise shooting. Watch the results of the experiment --- using some folks with relatively little gun training as well as some who are trained marksmen --- to see how well that whole "if only someone was armed during these shootings they could have stopped the shooter!" argument holds up...

UPDATE: Several commenters written to take issue with our description of the Fort Hood shootings having taken place "in the middle of a U.S. Army base, filled with people carrying loaded weapons and many more with easy access to them"...

They have noted that personnel on base, other than security officers, are not allowed to carry loaded weapons. Their point seems to be, apparently, that it would be easier for an elementary school principal to hear about a shooting on campus, run to her office (if she happened to be there that day), unlock her weapon, retrieve it, and respond to a mass shooting with at least as much speed and effectiveness as U.S. Army personnel were able to radio or call for military police to respond at the scene of the Fort Hood shootings where, by the way, the first armed officer to arrive was felled after being hit by the assailant three times. The second armed respondent, a trained member of the Dept. of Army Civilian Police, was finally able to take down the shooter and take him into custody.

We believe our original point still stands, and that a secured U.S. Army base is ultimately as capable of responding, if not more so, to such a shooting --- or in the case of Fort Hood, not capable of responding to it quickly enough to prevent mass casualties --- as an elementary school principal, or someone in a darkened, tear gas-filled, sold-out movie theater would be. But we're happy to note that there are those who, apparently, see it differently somehow.

We've also updated the article above to cite the incidents where armed security officers similarly failed to prevent the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan, the mass shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech, and to note the nine innocent bystanders randomly shot by NYC Police officers during their attempt to apprehend a gunman at the Empire State building in the summer of 2012.

The whole quickdraw response scenario is insanity, but in the video things were stacked against the concealed carrier: They've got everyone in loose t-shirts and wearing protective gloves, so it's unusually difficult to draw,("Joey struggles to get his gun out...") and then they talk about tunnel vision when the guy has blinders (in the form goggles) on.

@Nate
In the shooter's favor:
- the armed volunteer was aware that he would be called on to use the weapon sometime that day
- all the good guys were wearing the same outfit, picking out the shooter from bystanders is easy
- the volunteer had a good view of the door and the entire classroom

The 2nd Amendment was designed to raise the cost of tyranny. The intent of the founders was to provide the option to overthrow our government once it fails to abide by the governed.

Actually, the intent of the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear from what is said in the actual 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why are you against "a well regulated Militia"? Don't you support the 2nd Amendment?

If there is a precipitous drop in any crime related to the erosion of civil liberties, the assumed benefit pales in comparison to the long-term damage of liberties lost.

So the "precipitous drop in crime" after we banned machine guns in the 30s "pale[d] in comparison to the long-term damage of liberties lost"? Are you suggesting we should end the ban on machine guns? Or the bans on civilians purchasing tanks? What about the ban on children buying weapons? How has the loss of those "civil liberties" succeeded in "long-term damage"?

Also, what about the "civil liberties", like the right to be alive and stuff, of the 11,000 killed by fire arms each year? Fuck them and their civil liberties?

The whole quickdraw response scenario is insanity, but in the video things were stacked against the concealed carrier: They've got everyone in loose t-shirts and wearing protective gloves, so it's unusually difficult to draw,("Joey struggles to get his gun out...") and then they talk about tunnel vision when the guy has blinders (in the form goggles) on.

So we have an excuse for every single one of them who failed then? Because concealed carriers, who wingnuts claim are the only thing that can possibly protect against mass shootings, are generally wearing tightfitting clothes, have nothing on their hands or in them, and have easy access to their guns and won't have the tunnel vision described by police in the video?

The tunnel vision incident you reference in the video, by the way, shows the "good guy" shooter turning to the side to shoot at a friendly. In other words, even though that person should have been shielded by the goggles, the "good guy" turned and tried to take the other "good guy" who was on the side of them.

Seems a ridiculous case to make, but, of course, that's just my opinion.

Brad @8,
I'm not exactly sure of your intended meaning here so maybe this clarification is outta place, but I think in the camera shot of the two audience shooters the guy on the right is the accomplice shooting at the guy on to the left who is the subject of the experiment.

I think you are aware of the shortcomings of your militia argument. I've heard this argument used in the past, but never gave it much weight. I'll defer to a well articulated abridged point made by "Ghostrider" on a forum covering this issue:

"The entire first part of the Second Amendment is directly contingent on the second part of the Second Amendment being upheld, meaning that the militia is entirely dependant on the ability of American citizens to freely own guns, meaning that gun control laws directly harm the militia and are a crime against America."

So this annual list of 11,000 casualties you provide (out of more than 300 million) - what are you quoting? How many are casualties from people breaking existing laws? What sort of shooting incidents are included in this figure? Quoting this figure in isolation ensures no comparison to other types of casualties. What other activities should we refrain from to eliminate a comparable per capita percentage of casualties?

Your list of questions:

Are you suggesting we should end the ban on machine guns?

Now that you mention it, yes.

Or the bans on civilians purchasing tanks?

Depends. I see no reason for banning tanks (impractical as they are) provided there's no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

What about the ban on children buying weapons?

Adulthood signifies the capacity to act as a moral agent. Children are not ready, but I highly recommend training children (like I was) over the use and handling of weapons. This tends to eliminate the hysterics over guns we see today.

How has the loss of those "civil liberties" succeeded in "long-term damage"?

Look around you. Do I really need to point out specific circumstances reflecting the erosion of our civil liberties? Please.

Hypocrisy rules and authority is only able to keep its grip over a well-informed populace through the use of force.

Maybe you are perfectly content for civilians to relinquish even more power. The problem we have now is the chorus of people pushing to disarm the public. Authorities are moving fast with various power grabs because of the internet reformation. A more discerning public is more difficult to control. The erosion of civil liberties is moving at a rapid pace. Tyrannical rule begins with disarming the citizens. If only the authorities have arms, the cost of tyranny is much lower.

This is an even less desirable outcome today as people eventually realize that we are ruled by criminals.

I think you are aware of the shortcomings of your militia argument. I've heard this argument used in the past, but never gave it much weight. I'll defer to a well articulated abridged point made by "Ghostrider" on a forum covering this issue:

"The entire first part of the Second Amendment is directly contingent on the second part of the Second Amendment being upheld, meaning that the militia is entirely dependant on the ability of American citizens to freely own guns, meaning that gun control laws directly harm the militia and are a crime against America."

You get points here because a) I think you're well-meaning, just terribly conned and confused. And b) You bothered to at least link to the source of the "Ghost Rider" quote. I've read his entire comment over there now and let's just say, since I'm feeling generous tonight, that, as the other commenters on the thread there also seem to observe, your pseudonymous friend "Ghost Rider" is not exactly, um, much of a Consitutional scholar.

So this annual list of 11,000 casualties you provide (out of more than 300 million) - what are you quoting? How many are casualties from people breaking existing laws? What sort of shooting incidents are included in this figure? Quoting this figure in isolation ensures no comparison to other types of casualties.

Of course, I was being both very conservative, and speaking in very round numbers. The crime statistics are widely available. You can start here if you like. From that Wiki page on U.S. Gun Violence (all of the claims sourced in the original article linked above), for example, it states:

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[4] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[5] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[6] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[7]

Happy to drill down and offer you more statistics as you like, but you seem like a very smart fellow and can find that info on your own, I'm fairly certain.

What other activities should we refrain from to eliminate a comparable per capita percentage of casualties?

Fair enough. At least your honest. Thankfully, almost the entire of the nation disagrees with you, and have for almost 100 years. I'll hope it stays that way, as the banning of machine guns has been particularly successful in helping to end deaths by machine gun in the U.S.

Or the bans on civilians purchasing tanks?

Depends. I see no reason for banning tanks (impractical as they are) provided there's no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

But there's a "reason" to un-ban machine guns? And what is that reason?

What about the ban on children buying weapons?

Adulthood signifies the capacity to act as a moral agent. Children are not ready

But adults are? All of them? Was the "adult" who killed 12 people and injured 58 others in a matter of minutes in the Aurora, CO movie theater "ready"? Did he have the "capacity to act as a moral agent"?

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you and the NRA con-man leadership, while agreeing with the vast majority of the NRA membership and non-NRA gun-owners alike that background checks on all gun purchases and barring gun ownership by the insane and those found guilty of violent misdemeanors do not need to purchase firearms, "ready" or otherwise.

but I highly recommend training children (like I was) over the use and handling of weapons. This tends to eliminate the hysterics over guns we see today.

Well, I was trained, as a child, in both the use and handling of weapons. But I hardly believe that neither I, nor the vast majority of NRA members, are exhibiting "hysterics over guns".

But your strawman arguments, like so many others I've seen since last Friday, are swell.

How has the loss of those "civil liberties" succeeded in "long-term damage"?

Look around you. Do I really need to point out specific circumstances reflecting the erosion of our civil liberties? Please.

Yes. Yes, you do. We are not talking about civil liberties like writing private emails or making phone calls. We are, quite specifically, talking about the "long-term damage" to "civil liberties" in the banning of things like machine-guns, nuclear weapons and tanks. So please let me know what the "long-term damage" to our "civil liberties" has been in those practices. Otherwise, I'll assume you have no actual response to my query.

By now I am sure you are aware that our government has no legitimacy accept through force.

None of those things, even the pretend "conspiracies" you've included in your list, succeeded in relinquishing the legitimacy of all government in the U.S. And, of course, as I suspect you know, I've written quite a bit about several of those things.

Hypocrisy rules and authority is only able to keep its grip over a well-informed populace through the use of force.

I respectfully disagree.

Maybe you are perfectly content for civilians to relinquish even more power.

I don't find "civilian power" in the amassing of combat-style weapons by a chorus of paranoid, purposely-disinformed yutzes. Sorry.

The problem we have now is the chorus of people pushing to disarm the public.

"Chorus"? I haven't heard even one serious person "push" for that, much less a "chorus". Got URL?

Authorities are moving fast with various power grabs because of the internet reformation. A more discerning public is more difficult to control. The erosion of civil liberties is moving at a rapid pace.

Yes. It is. But purchasing unlimited quantities of AR-15s, with 100-round drum magazines, without the slightest need to pass a background check, own insurance, or any technical proficiency or licensing is not, in my opinion, a "civil liberty". In fact, it ought to be strictly classified as a crime.

Tyrannical rule begins with disarming the citizens. If only the authorities have arms, the cost of tyranny is much lower.

Thanks, Alex Jones! But since none of those things is actually happening, perhaps we can stick to things that actually are.

Well, I read that article. Which of those many incidents listed (presuming, out of generosity again, that they are all accurate) required unlimited quantities of AR-15s, with 100-round drum magazines? Any of them? Even a single one?

Sorry about the above site's clinging to the phony left/right paradigm. That does get annoying.

Oh, no need to apologize for the sites "phony left/right paradigm". You should be apologizing for it's complete and utter bullshit, like the article there currently featured at the top of the site with the clickable link text "Will You Let Obama Take Your Guns?"

Kinda makes the site a bit less than credible. You may wish to cite more credible stuff in the future if you want to be continue to be taken somewhat seriously around here.

Which part of the video demonstrates they are "brain-dead"? Cuz I'm just kinda guessing, given your record here, you didn't bother to watch any of it. Presuming you did, however, are you saying that the Bethlehem, PA Police Department's Emergency Response Team (a nice word for SWAT team) is "brain-dead"? Really?? How so?

Like putting a bomb in a truck to make it explode on impact (dateline 1992).

(Psst. That was NBC, not ABC. But, I'm open to your claim that the ABC video is "brain-dead". Got any evidence for that, or have you just reverted to that making-shit-up thing you generally do around here?)

Brad is clueless about Fort Hood. Unwilling to admit it when called out.

Not clueless at all. Quite aware of the situation there when I wrote what I wrote above. Are you suggesting that a school principal would be better able to defend against an assault-rifle wielding mass shooter in a classroom with a gun locked up in his office than the fully armed and carrying Military Police at Fort Hood was that day? Really? Or, are you trying to suggest the Fort Hood military is as "brain-dead" as you believe the Bethlehem, PA Emergency Response Team to be?

I bet the school children in China feel blessed today that the knife attacked sucked at knifing. Each one of their throats could have been the target.

Lets return to muskets for firearms. I'm sure law abiding criminals will turn in their weapons. How about the drug cartels who have been supplied with assault rifles by our own government who gives our own guys bean bag ammo. I'll feel safer protecting my wife and four kids from a wack job with my baseball bat while he has a gun. It's not practical.

Where are the civil liberties Brad for those who are killed by drunk drivers every year? Based upon your comments throughout this post and others we should either get rid of either alcohol or all cars that go above 5 miles per hour to avoid fatalities.

The ABC video isn't accurate. A trained gunmen comes into a room and shoots the teacher and maybe one other student before attacking the "trained" student immediately. Sounds 100% accurate for a real life situation.

Read some more about Ft Hood before you bring up the shooting. The civilian police were no where near the shooting site. A medical wing attacked by a terrorist where men and women used tables and chairs to defend themselves before being shot! If one person who had been trained had been there with a gun, what might the outcome have been?

The NRA offers multiple classes on gun safety and defense. Responsible people learn how to correctly engage shooters. They are not demons looking to devour children and drag them to hell.

Lastly, in Conn we know that if the principal would have had a firearm she might have been able to engage the shooter with something other than her voice and maybe a set of keys. More does need to be done to keep all guns out of the mentally unstable's hands. More education is needed. However, banning all AR/AK's and Glock's isn't the answer just like having breathalyzers on every steering wheel isn't practical.

Tasers have been a really good idea for cops, haven't they? No abuse or unnecessary use of excessive force since they were introduced widescale, huh? Yeah, so it only makes sense to give more and more people greater capacity to do more catastrophic bodily harm. That'll fix our violence problem!

I'll say it again. These people are living in a Gary Cooper western.

What I get from these gun addicts is fear. There like Dick Cheney. Completely terrified that somebody's always out there wantin' to get 'em. Carrying hazmat suits and needing machine guns and assault weapons to step out of their houses. And with absolutely no clue about how their rabid obsession with cut throat capitalism, endless competition over cooperation, and guns, guns, and more guns only intensifies the forces in our culture they're already so terrified of.

I hope some day we can manage to get past the caveman stage of evolution. Not holding my breath.

My quibble is that you said: "in the middle of a U.S. Army base, filled with people carrying loaded weapons and many more with easy access to them?"

It's not true. A U.S. Army Base is a gun-controllers paradise. It's not filled with people carrying loaded weapons - very few are armed. People don't have easy access to weapons - the weapons are in strict lockdown and take a lot of time to get.

The 13 people who were killed and the 30 who were injured at Fort Hood were not permitted to have any firearms even though each and every one of them was specifically trained with them as a fully-fledged member of the U.S. Army.

Your statement indicates it's like the Terminator in the police station where even though the police are armed, they can't stop the robot. It wasn't so in the Fort Hood case. The police were specifically disarmed.

What in this list do you dismiss as "pretend conspiracies" and what is the rationale for stating that they fail to take away the legitimacy of our government?

Tactics that dismiss by association don't cut it. You're not making the militia argument, just dismissing Ghostrider as an unsuitable scholar unworthy of your rebuttal. Honestly, I'd rather you hold your nose and make your rebuttal.

All the incidents in the "Defensive Gun Report" have links to specific news articles, so a rudimentary click-through would eliminate your need for "generosity" in assuming they are real events. It's almost just as much effort to indirectly question their authenticity.

So if the events are indeed verifiable and are the main point of my link, what is your point in referring to the "Barack take your guns" article especially after I point out the shortcomings of the site?

Alex Jones is unreliable as he makes numerous false predictions and inaccurate statements. He does not own the term "tyranny" and he should not be referred to as an attempt to dismiss by association.

The NRA is as ineffectual as Move-On. They are also tools of the phony left/right paradigm and they refuse to investigate corrupt sheriffs abusing conceal carry permits because of their party affiliation. (California, for example). It is a distraction to bring the NRA into the debate.

While I appreciate your suggesting that I "use more reputable sources", I don't think you need to be distracted by what I linked to. Basic media literacy helps one differentiate the facts from the bullshit. I fail to see how you were challenged.

And I don't believe it is much of a challenge to understand what I'm getting at with the question, "What other activities should we refrain from to eliminate a comparable per capita percentage of casualties?"

11,000 casualties is one of those remarkably small percentages. With a population of 300,000,000, 11,624 is about 0.00004% unless, of course, you happen to be one of those 11,000.

How many were acts of self defense? Police actions? Gun free zone casualties (See Portland's Clakamas Mall shooting)? Violations of existing laws? How many suicides would be prevented without guns? How many murders?

You wonder where is the chorus calling to disarm the public? If you want to observe propaganda in play, Google Alert a particular subject matter. If you Google alert "gun control", you will find overwhelming activity by local politicians calling for the banning of various weaponry, mountains of editorials calling for stricter gun measures and many pieces passing as news extolling the virtues of a gunfree public.

It's not enough to thump your chest and declare a group as "purposely disinformed" and use mere guilt by association to prove your point.

I only bother with this commentary because I assume you could do better. Honestly, you're going to have to do better because I'm not seeing much distinction from other tools of that phony left/right paradigm.

It is kinda funny how you act like you know what you're talking about but you don't. Concealed Carry is strictly prohibited on Military/Federal Installations. Firearms on post are supposed to be turned into the arms room when not in use and random vehicle inspections take place at the front gate. Is it tougher to pop the trunk of your vehicle than to get the person in charge of the gun safe to come in unlock the weapons, and then draw ammo from a separate location? I don't know maybe you could do a video? Lastly did you discredit events that have taken place in real life for this scenario? Aurora Movie shooting vs. San Antonio Movie shooting or in Israel the Ma'alot massacre with unarmed school staff vs. currently armed school staff outcomes?

Lets return to muskets for firearms. I'm sure law abiding criminals will turn in their weapons.

Hey, thanks for opening your thoughts with two completely straw men arguments! Without that, it might have taken a bit longer to notice how much nonsense the rest of your remarks contained!

I'll feel safer protecting my wife and four kids from a wack job with my baseball bat while he has a gun. It's not practical.

That's swell. Since nobody is calling for you to protect your wife and four kids with a baseball bat. Any other straw men you wish to offer? Oh...plenty, it looks like! Neato!

Where are the civil liberties Brad for those who are killed by drunk drivers every year? Based upon your comments throughout this post and others we should either get rid of either alcohol or all cars that go above 5 miles per hour to avoid fatalities.

Um...okay, I'll bite. Where do my "comments throughout this post and others" suggest any such thing? Got links and quotes for me? Or just pulling shit out of your ass?

As to what substance there is in your-many-times-debunked straw man argument offering false equivalence to automobile deaths and deaths by guns, Ernie Canning offered a detailed response to you on that same point when you raised it in a previous thread. So did I. But since you may be busy battling off bad guys, and not have the time to click, here's the part of my response to that specific point, which I posted, after Ernie's, in that same thread:

[Y]es, many are killed by drunk drivers and in other automobile related incidents. That's why, unlike with guns, we have incredibly stringent safety requirements and oversight for the manufacturer, purchase and use of automobiles. Regulations require that proficiency tests be passed and that regular licensing occurs for their legal use. Also, we enforce strict regulations such as speed limits, stop lights, and the use of safety belts and require that everyone who operates a vehicle must have insurance to pay for the costs of damages to themselves and others. No such oversight or regulations are required during the manufacture, purchase and use of semi-automatic weapons, ammunition or high-capacity magazines. Not to mention that in the correct use of automobiles, nobody dies, as they are designed for transportation, not to kill people. In the correct use of a semi-automatic weapon hundreds can die in a matter of seconds.

The ABC video isn't accurate. A trained gunmen comes into a room and shoots the teacher and maybe one other student before attacking the "trained" student immediately. Sounds 100% accurate for a real life situation.

Perhaps I missed your point? How is the video not "accurate"? The gunman comes in, shoots the teacher, then starts firing on the crowd, specifically at the one person who isn't ducking for cover, but is standing up and trying to fire at them. So, lemme know what I, ABC News, and the Bethlehem, PA Emergency Response Team are missing. We could use your help if you have time away from the bad guys trying to get you in order to share!

Read some more about Ft Hood before you bring up the shooting. The civilian police were no where near the shooting site. A medical wing attacked by a terrorist where men and women used tables and chairs to defend themselves before being shot! If one person who had been trained had been there with a gun, what might the outcome have been?

Dunno. Maybe similar to the outcome of the six people seen in the video above?

But are you saying that the solution is that we now need armed security guards in every room in every building in America? Sounds like a very reasonable solution. I can see no downsides or holes in that plan. (sigh...)

The NRA offers multiple classes on gun safety and defense. Responsible people learn how to correctly engage shooters.

So does the Bethlehem, PA Emergency Response Team, as seen in the video above. How did that work out?

They are not demons looking to devour children and drag them to hell.

I was worried for a moment you wouldn't put forward any more phony arguments in hopes of camouflaging your weak real ones. Thanks for dispelling me of that notion!

Lastly, in Conn we know that if the principal would have had a firearm she might have been able to engage the shooter with something other than her voice and maybe a set of keys.

Of course, we can't know that for sure. Or if she would have even been at the school that day or killed before she had the chance to unlock her gun safe, load the weapon and get to the class. I don't see how we can be safe unless every teacher in every classroom in America has a weapon, do you? (sigh, again...)

More does need to be done to keep all guns out of the mentally unstable's hands.

Really? Because the "demons" at the NRA have spent many years and many millions of dollars trying to keep that from happening. Now why would they have been doing that for so long?

More education is needed. However, banning all AR/AK's and Glock's isn't the answer just like having breathalyzers on every steering wheel isn't practical.

Right. However, everyone who uses a "steering wheel" is required to meet very serious regulations in order to use it. They are also strictly barred from using steering wheels on vehicles that do not meet serious federal regulations and regular inspections. You, however, appear to be interested in no similar regulations for the use of weapons that are built specifically to kill as many of your fellow citizens as possible in as short a time as possible. Why would that be?

So, just so I understand the case you seem to be trying to make...You are saying it would be quicker and easier and more efficient for an Elementary School Principal to hear about an ongoing shooting someone in or around the school (with the gun man firing as many as 70 bullets a minute), get to her office, unlock her weapon, load it, carry it to a classroom and take out a mass shooter than it was for someone to contact armed MPs on a supposedly-secure Army base? Really? That's the case you are making here? And you're sticking with that?

One, I am correcting your incorrect facts. You claimed that Ford Hood was a gun-owners fantasy scenario, but it still failed. That's incorrect. Fort Hood was just another disarmament scenario where 'when seconds count, the police are minutes away.' It played out like all the other disarmament scenarios.

Two, if you want me to propose a solution, here it is: The Israeli solution, which defends schools against terrorist attack (which our school shooters are, it's just that their goal is not directly political.)

Those teachers who wish to concealed carry go through a training course and do so. Volunteers at the school, usually the parents and grandeparents of the students, go through screening and training and volunteer at the school.

What in this list [posted above] do you dismiss as "pretend conspiracies" and what is the rationale for stating that they fail to take away the legitimacy of our government?

Well, among them, "Operation Fast and Furious" and Waco/Ruby Ridge. Beyond that, it will depend on what side of the argument you are charging there to be a conspiracy. For example, OKC was certainly a conspiracy between at least McVeigh and Nichols. Did they work with others? We'll likely never know, because we kill them both, as I recall. Was there another conspiracy, or, as you may be indicating a government conspiracy to blow up its own building? If so, I've not seen evidence that convincing me of that. Similar distinctions could be made in many of the other incidents you listed, of course. So that is just one example.

Tactics that dismiss by association don't cut it. You're not making the militia argument, just dismissing Ghostrider as an unsuitable scholar unworthy of your rebuttal. Honestly, I'd rather you hold your nose and make your rebuttal.

Well, his/her argument is largely just stupid and has no legal or historical basis. If you'd like to offer a serious argument along similar-ish lines to the very liberal (yes, liberal) one offered by Scalia in Heller, arguing that we can, for the first time in our history completely ignore the first clause of the 2nd Amendment ("well-regulated militia") in favor of the second clause ("shall not be infringed"), we can debate that. As I'm sure you know, that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is fairly new, after being invented by the NRA after their 1977 leadership coup and completely contrary to almost universal interpretation by all political parties and courts alike for the first couple of centuries since the Constitution was adopted. Scalia's tortured Heller argument, and the new interpretation of the Constitution that came with it for the first time four years ago, offers many holes still uninterpreted by SCOTUS.

There are serious arguments made on many sides of the issue. "Ghost Riders" is not one of them, in my opinion. Sorry. As is, I spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to respond, one-by-one, to as many folks as I can in comments, to the detriment of work that I can do for many thousands at once. So I hope you understand if I don't necessarily wish to take up every single argument in comments, particularly when it is an un-serious one written by a pseudonymous guys on some other site, forwarded by another pseudonymous guy on this one.

All the incidents in the "Defensive Gun Report" have links to specific news articles, so a rudimentary click-through would eliminate your need for "generosity" in assuming they are real events. It's almost just as much effort to indirectly question their authenticity.

Again, spending the time to respond to each commenter, much less an article elsewhere with 30 or so links to some credible, some not credible sites, is not the best use of my time. For example, someone over on The BRAD BLOG Facebook page, offered a similar argument, and linked to another article portending to show several cases where a gunman was stopped by another person with a gun. In almost every single case, once I looked at each, the gunman, in fact, was NOT stopped by someone with a gun, but only after the killing spree had already ended, was then captured or held by someone with a gun.

In that case, there were just 4 or so cases to look into. And each one revealed the failure of the argument being forwarded. So, here, to cut to the chase, I went ahead and stipulated the links and cases you cited were legit for purposes of our argument here, and then asked which of them, if any, required semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to have stopped the criminal.

So, are you able to cite any? If so, which one? How many of them? There are lots of them there to choose from! Or could each of those incidents, if they played out as you and the author of the article claim, have also been stopped by a revolver or non-self-loading .22 rifle, for instance?

So if the events are indeed verifiable and are the main point of my link, what is your point in referring to the "Barack take your guns" article especially after I point out the shortcomings of the site?

Because you suggested the problem with the site was a "phony left/right paradigm", while I was suggesting that the site should be afforded no such benefit of the doubt in assessing its credibility, given that it offered a blatantly inaccurate point as its top headline. The Washington Post and the New York Times offer "phony left/right paradigms". The site you cited seems to offer blatant bullshit in place of actual facts. That was the distinction I was making in response to that part of your comment, which should be clear from the way I quoted and responded to you above.

Alex Jones is unreliable as he makes numerous false predictions and inaccurate statements. He does not own the term "tyranny" and he should not be referred to as an attempt to dismiss by association.

Fair enough. Then at the same time, phrases such as the one of yours I was responding to ("Tyrannical rule begins with disarming the citizens. If only the authorities have arms, the cost of tyranny is much lower.") which have no basis in fact in this discussion (since nobody is "disarming citizens" nor assuring that "only authorities have arms") "should not be referred to" in an attempt to put issues into discussion which are not even close to being a part of this discussion.

The NRA is as ineffectual as Move-On.

Well, so much for your credibility too, if that's the argument you are seriously making.

They are also tools of the phony left/right paradigm and they refuse to investigate corrupt sheriffs abusing conceal carry permits because of their party affiliation. (California, for example). It is a distraction to bring the NRA into the debate.

Right. See what I said about your credibility above. If you are going to stick with the absurd main thrust of that argument, I see nothing to gain from this discussion.

And I don't believe it is much of a challenge to understand what I'm getting at with the question, "What other activities should we refrain from to eliminate a comparable per capita percentage of casualties?"

Lessee...we should "refrain from" driving without seat belts or under the influence of alcohol. We should "eliminate" toxic pesticides in our food supply. We should "eliminate" the civilian use of fully automatic weapons. We should "refrain from" the use of highly radioactive substances under all but the most controlled situations.

Do any of those responses satisfy your question?

11,000 casualties is one of those remarkably small percentages. With a population of 300,000,000, 11,624 is about 0.00004% unless, of course, you happen to be one of those 11,000.

So, your point being, that while we could easily do something to potentially help lower that number of casualties, we should not do so, because it might infringe on a "civil right" which you have yet to identify or because more people might die from other activities? That's what you're getting at?

How many were acts of self defense? Police actions? Gun free zone casualties (See Portland's Clakamas Mall shooting)? Violations of existing laws? How many suicides would be prevented without guns? How many murders?

Again, I'm not particularly interested in taking several days (weeks?) to go through each of the tens of thousands of deaths by firearms to offer you the specific percentages you request. I did have the courtesy, however, to take the time to find you a page with independently verifiable cites which offered information and links to answers for most of the questions above. The part of that page I quoted specifically spoke to some of those questions as well. (eg., it offered specifics on how many gun deaths were deliberate vs. accidental, but non-fatal gun injuries in 2000, and how many gun deaths in 2008 were homicides versus suicides, etc.)

You wonder where is the chorus calling to disarm the public? If you want to observe propaganda in play, Google Alert a particular subject matter. If you Google alert "gun control", you will find overwhelming activity by local politicians calling for the banning of various weaponry, mountains of editorials calling for stricter gun measures and many pieces passing as news extolling the virtues of a gunfree public.

Um, you do realize that "banning of various weaponry", such as that done by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted from 1994 to 2004 did not "disarm" anybody, right? So, again, if you'd like to make the argument, please have the courtesy to respond to the specific question I asked you in my previous response. For your convenience, here it is again:

"Chorus"? I haven't heard even one serious person "push" for that, much less a "chorus". Got URL?

It's not enough to thump your chest and declare a group as "purposely disinformed" and use mere guilt by association to prove your point.

I haven't. I would also suggest that it's not enough to cite pseudonymous arguments with no basis in either history or law, while refusing to cite any specific evidence to back up your arguments when pressed on them.

I only bother with this commentary because I assume you could do better.

Um. Ditto.

Honestly, you're going to have to do better because I'm not seeing much distinction from other tools of that phony left/right paradigm.

Actually, I don't "have to do" anything. But I'm trying to be courteous to you, because you don't appear to be --- unlike so many of the other yutzes offering similar cases here, but with even less intelligent lines of reasoning to support them --- a complete idiot. That said, you can only use the phrase "phony left/right paradigm" (which I use myself with some frequency), without offering any evidence to back up the assertion, before you end up in being regarded similarly.

So, um, you're going to have to do better, because I'm beginning to see not much of a distinction between your "arguments" and those of the NRA stooges and tools that are being made by several of those idiots on this very same thread.

You claimed that Ford Hood was a gun-owners fantasy scenario, but it still failed.

Actually, you needn't embellish was I "claimed". It's right up there in the article. Specifically:

First, how many shots did the Fort Hood shooter get off when he opened fire --- killing 13 and wounding 29 others --- in the middle of a U.S. Army base, filled with people carrying loaded weapons and many more with easy access to them?

The point stands, whether you take issue with it or not. As does the further update I provided just below it (in re: the armed guards at both Columbine and Virginia Tech, the NY City police who shot 9 innocent bystanders while trying to stop an armed gunman at the Empire State building this past summer, as well as the comment from Sarah Brady whose husband was shot in the brain during an assassination attempt on President Reagan amidst an entire contingent of armed Secret Service members whose only mission is to prevent and stop such attacks.)

As to your "solution" that we should become Israel, and remain at a constant state of war for 50 years, as they have, well, no thanks. Appreciate the suggestion. I'm not particularly interested in that. You are, however, welcome to live in terror and, as long as it's legal, pack a loaded semi-assualt weapon everywhere you go in order to combat the evil terrorists you seem to feel are lurking around every corner. I just hope nobody in your family manages to get killed by that weapon first, as the odds are MUCH greater that that will happen than you'll stop a terrorist attack with it. In fact, the odds of you and/or someone in your family dying by fire weapon are now, presuming you have one, FAR higher than those of anybody reading this who may not have such a weapon.

Operation "Fast and Furious" has the DEA selling and/or distributing guns to drug dealers in Mexico. Ironically, politicians were calling for stricter gun laws as a result of this activity.

Waco has infrared footage of gunshots in the back of the building as it is burning. Video footage indicates that the DEA fired first.

The Oaklahoma City bombing has blast damage that could not have come from McVeigh's truck. Officers attempting to do their job were harassed for not going along with the official story. See, "A Noble Lie".

You mention that I provide no evidence for various statements I make. If something I put forth actually requires your looking at evidence, let me know what it is.

There is enough information in the events listed that indicate a disparity between the official story and what evidence otherwise suggests.
If you don't want to waste time with "certain websites" or answering commentary, at least spend enough time to understand the evidence available for these items.

They are significant events as they indicate an egregious breach of trust. What's worse, these are events often used as an excuse for further actions against the people. For those who know better, they are excuses that are illegitimate. I'm left with the impression that you believe that, despite these offenses, our government's legitimacy is still in tact.

The time you spent dissing Ghostrider could have been used to provide contradictory information disputing the Heller decision. Ironically, you mention "strawman arguments" a number of times in past commentary. We get you don't like Ghostrider, but his simple sentence I provided previously should be enough for your rebuttal.
Perhaps I should have refrained from making the link to it so you could argue with me instead.

It estimates 2,000,000 defensive gun uses per year. If you calculate that only 1% of those would have resulted in a murder then one could say gun ownership in this country prevents at least 20,000 murders a year. This doesn't include all the additional deaths prevented because of the perpetrator recognizing that the potential victim was packing heat.

So, your point being, that while we could easily do something to potentially help lower that number of casualties, we should not do so, because it might infringe on a "civil right" which you have yet to identify or because more people might die from other activities? That's what you're getting at?

Uh, no, because there is not an easy solution that would actually lower the number of casualties.

So if the events are indeed verifiable and are the main point of my link, what is your point in referring to the "Barack take your guns" article especially after I point out the shortcomings of the site?

Because you suggested the problem with the site was a "phony left/right paradigm", while I was suggesting that the site should be afforded no such benefit of the doubt in assessing its credibility, given that it offered a blatantly inaccurate point as its top headline.

By the way, I looked at this video your article is referring to. Does that look at all like propaganda to you?

Anyway, I agree that you are extending the courtesy to respond (and allow for comments, for that matter), but some sites will have headlines you may not agree with. That said, if you dismiss out of hand all the information a particular source may have, you likely miss the truthful gems. What if I dismissed all your other information because you believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? I'd miss all the good election stuff!

What I mean by "doing better" is to avoid assigning guilt by association, stop dismissing info from a source or site because of irrelevant articles and avoid dismissing one's credibility without articulating why a statement should be challenged or disputed. Again, state what evidence you're looking for and, with a little time, I can send it your way. This includes what you describe as "pseudonymous arguments with no basis in either history or law".

If military bases ban concealed guns for everybody but MPs and don't trust trained soldiers to pack heat, then maybe arming teachers isn't such a good idea. Or is the military leadership just full of a bunch of liberal anti-gun nuts?

I appreciate your point and your opinion. I disagree that radioing or telephoning on an Army base that "we are under armed attack" would somehow bring a slower or less appropriate or less lethal response than an elementary school principal and her locked up gun.

Also (and I should update this above, to make it a bit clearer --- maybe tomorrow), the Fort Hood Shooter got off some 200 shots during his spree. The first armed respondent ended up going down after taking three hits. It took at least another armed respondent to take him down.

So, setting aside whether they are on an army base or not, I suppose the letter here is that we don't need a school principal with access to a gun, we need at least two fully trained, and fully armed security personnel in every public location to keep us safe (kinda like the two at Columbine, or the entire police force at Virginia Tech), rather than doing anything to more strictly regulate the purchase and use unlimited semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity mags.

All due respect (and I can only offer so much who to someone who writes behind a pseudonym and fails to respond to direct questions with specific evidence requested, though I did try to at great length) I'm really not interested in going down all of these rabbit holes with you.

I didn't spend time "disputing the Heller decision" with you, because I don't have any particular interest in "disputing the Heller decision" with you. I pointed to it only by way of citing a "legitimate" (if only because it was offered in an actual SCOTUS ruling) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (unlike the one you cited), which seems to support your point of view. I did so, by way of showing you that it's not the fact that it's written by some guy named "Ghost Rider" that leaves me unimpressed, it's that the argument, as I've now mentioned several times, has no basis in either history or case law to my knowledge. In fact, it appears to be utter horse shit.

If you'd like to respond to central points of the discussion, please do. The rest is not really all that interesting to me, or worth spending hours responding to (as I also hinted in previous replies). It seems clear you believe we should improve NO gun safety regulations in any matter whatsoever, because it might infringe upon "civil rights" that you have still failed to identify, OR that you believe, without evidence (and, indeed, contrary to existing evidence from during the 10 years of the AWB) that it will have no affect in lowering casualty rates. Okay. Sorry you didn't seem interested in actually making your case.

Moreover, you presented ZERO evidence of anybody, much less Obama (who expanded gun rights more in his first year than Dubya did in all eight) moving to take anybody's guns away. It's a purposely disingenuous (false) headline.

As to the 2011 Jose Guerena case (again, at a site with no credibility, no editor, in an article with no links or even context --- and which I don't particularly care to spend time investigating), let's go ahead and stipulate the SWAT team acted inappropriately and/or on bad information from the Sheriff's office when they killed him (presuming they did --- again, haven't looked into the story one iota). Are you suggesting he'd be alive today if he had an assault weapon? That he would have outgunned the surprise attack of a metropolitan SWAT team? Really? That he would have fought them off and won?

If so, you are delusional. But I take your lack of ability to cite even one single case --- from that story you eagerly linked to as "evidence" of the importance of the unregulated distribution of any and all semi-automatic (and you even called for automatic) weapons, unlimited ammo and unlimited magazines and magazine capacity --- where such a weapon was needed to ward off the crime in question to mean that you are unable to cite any such incident from among the very evidence that YOU proffered.

Regarding the "2nd Amendment protects us from tyranny" argument: Let's think about the so-called Patriot Act. That law isn't some right-wing paranoid fantasy about "Obama will take our guns!" or black helicopters or blue-helmeted UN troops putting us in concentration camps. That law is a REAL infringement on our liberties. Under the still-in-effect Patriot Act, the fed. govt. can, at any time and without having to provide any reason, cry "National Security!" and arrest us without warrant or charges, imprison us indefinitely, hold us incommunicado, deny us legal representation, search our homes, persons, cars, papers, email, phone records, snail mail, etc. in secret and without a warrant, take away our right to Habeas corpus (the right to go before a judge to contest our imprisonment), send us to foreign nations for "interrogation" by the authorities of said foreign nation (read "torture"), and a host of other liberty-destroying provisions too numerous to list here.

Where was the NRA while the Patriot Act was being passed? Where are they now while it's still in effect?

Most importantly, why didn't our right to bear arms protect us from this drastic, powerful, and seemingly permanent destruction of many of our Constitutional liberties??

Look, if gun owners really and truly want to protect our liberties, they should put down their guns and get politically active. Guns did not protect us and would not have protected us from the Patriot Act. Only active engagement in our political system would have or could still save us from the Patriot Act and/or other infringements of our liberties.

Getting harder and harder to tell the satire from the Alice in Wonderland/1984/ Bizarro World we're living in where words mean whatever the user wants them to mean. Where a police state represents safety and freedom. Where countries(that the rest of the worlds knows to exist) that have highly effective gun safety regulations don't exist.

Um, you do realize that "banning of various weaponry", such as that done by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted from 1994 to 2004 did not "disarm" anybody, right? So, again, if you'd like to make the argument, please have the courtesy to respond to the specific question I asked you in my previous response. For your convenience, here it is again:

"Chorus"? I haven't heard even one serious person "push" for that, much less a "chorus". Got URL?

This is such an obtuse feature in your argument, it's difficult to take seriously.

What do you mean the ban didn't disarm anybody? You're saying that nobody attempted to purchase or acquire weapons that were banned? Or are you saying that there was no demand for the weapons that were banned?

Maybe you're implying that they were able to use unbanned weapons?

So you are saying that tighter gun restrictions do not constitute a form of disarmament?

Why don't you just say so?

Gun restrictions are still indeed a from of disarmament since they are taking guns out of the hands of lawful citizens.

So this task you are brow-beating me with is to find an instance when authorities would "disarm anybody, right"?

Then I cited the blog entries in the Huffington Post and From the Trenches and I get this response:

Moreover, you presented ZERO evidence of anybody, much less Obama (who expanded gun rights more in his first year than Dubya did in all eight) moving to take anybody's guns away. It's a purposely disingenuous (false) headline.

Which headline are you referring to? Are you saying that the blog entries I cited (Huffington Post and From the Trenches) have false headlines?

You're not satisfied to recall a circumstance when a citizen is helpless and cannot defend against unlawful arrest, because the victim would still not have a favorable outcome even if he were armed. Throughout this discussion we have mentioned tyranny and raising the cost of tyranny. The murder of Jose Guerena is what tyranny looks like. Enabling Jose to put up a fight raises the cost of tyranny. (Impugning William Heuisler, by the way, wastes even more time and isn't worth the pretense of being a discerning reader).

It's interesting that you dismiss this incident because it does not result in a favorable outcome for the victim. It's like saying "it doesn't matter, anyway, because Guerena would still be dead". That's not the point. Jose Guerena was deprived of one of his civil liberties - his life. There is currently nothing that will discourage this event from happening again.

"Chorus"? I haven't heard even one serious person "push" for that, much less a "chorus". Got URL?

This is such an obtuse feature in your argument, it's difficult to take seriously.

Okay. So I've asked the question twice, and you've still failed to respond to the request. Impressed!

What do you mean the ban didn't disarm anybody? You're saying that nobody attempted to purchase or acquire weapons that were banned? Or are you saying that there was no demand for the weapons that were banned?

Are you seriously asking me that question? Perhaps I was too fast in giving you credit for not being dumb. I'll write slowly: You can't be disarmed if you don't have an arm in the first place. I don't have a machine gun. Am I being "disarmed" because I cannot legally buy one? The Federal Assault Weapon Ban took nobody's gun away. It did not disarm anybody. Got it yet?

So you are saying that tighter gun restrictions do not constitute a form of disarmament?

Why don't you just say so?

Gun restrictions are still indeed a from of disarmament since they are taking guns out of the hands of lawful citizens.

Oh. My. God. Please read my graf above again now. Thanks!

So this task you are brow-beating me with is to find an instance when authorities would "disarm anybody, right"?

NO! I'm asking you for what I am asking you for. Twice! Heard it is a THIRD time...

"Chorus"? I haven't heard even one serious person "push" for that, much less a "chorus". Got URL?

If there is some confusion here, perhaps it's your inability to read what you originally wrote and what I was replying to (twice, now three times). So, for your convenience, here is what YOU CHARGED that I WAS RESPONDING TO:

The problem we have now is the chorus of people pushing to disarm the public.

So. Last time... "Chorus"? I haven't heard even one serious person "push" for that, much less a "chorus". Got URL? ("URL" means Uniform (or Universal) Resource Locator, it will usually start with "http://" something.) Got one of those to show me the "chorus" of serious people calling for disarming the public as you asserted not that many years ago? (About 10 comments up.)

I assume by "brow-beating" you for, you mean "asking you for". You made a charge. I asked for your evidence to support it. Got any? I have to assume you do not. That you, in fact, pulling shit out of your ass to support what you'd like to believe, rather than what is actually occurring.

The rest of your comment, frankly (like most before it) doesn't merit any response, at this point. This is really dull. But thanks anyway. Sorry you were unable to make your pretend case. I'm sure it works elsewhere though.

(Your "Brady Bill Testimony" includes nobody calling for anybody to be disarmed either. But it does include a woman noting that the revolver she usually carried in her purse would have stopped the crazed shooter she says killed her parents. Just like all of those other examples you previously gave in which a semi-automatic assault weapon was NOT needed to stop a crime.)

First, are you seriously pretending to misunderstand Intercept's use of the term "disarmament" to describe regulations that would limit or prevent citizens from legally owning guns? Surely you know better. From Wikipedia: "Disarmament is the act of reducing, limiting, or abolishing weapons." Or maybe you should take a look at Title 22 USC � 2552 (a): The terms �arms control� and �disarmament� mean the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds. Its clear that "disarmament" may be used to describe control, reduction or elimation of guns of all kinds in the hands of US citizens.

Second, have you really not heard the "chorus" of voices pushing for disarmament (and by that you know that I mean restricting/limiting/eliminating ownership of guns of whatever kind)? You need an URL? Where to begin? I mean since Sandy Hook it seems like everyone is calling for more gun regulations! Try Googling it. Here you go, for starters:

You reject the Brady Bill Testimony because you say it "includes nobody calling for anybody to be disarmed". What do you think was the purpose of that legislation? The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536) instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States. Background checks, whether one agrees with them or not, are clearly intended to reduce the number of citizens able to get guns. Thus, the purpose was to DISARM certain citizens.

I see you are refusing to address the rest of Intercept's comments because you find it "really dull". I find your argument style to be really puerile and hard-headed, not to mention insulting.

The 2nd Amendment was designed to raise the cost of tyranny. The intent of the founders was to provide the option to overthrow our government once it fails to abide by the governed.

Your ability to read the minds of people dead for two centuriesis impressive. Ouija board?

The only crime defined in the Constitution is treason - armed overthrow of the government. So no, the founders didn't intend to allow for violent revolution - the whole point of the Constitution was to remove the need for that, with elections and an independent judiciary.

What they intended was just what it says - to provide for an armed citizen militia. There was no standing army, no permanent military other than a small coastal patrol. The defense against invasion - a very real threat since the French-Indian war was only 20 years before - was to call up citizens, who would bring their own weapons.

It is his sandbox. I honestly couldn't believe he was making the 'gun control is not disarmament' argument to begin with - or that he was claiming to be oblivious to the chorus. Dumb to give him the benefit of the doubt.

• "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
• "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787.
• "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
• "We think experience has proved it safer for the mass of individuals composing the society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent and to delegate those to which they are not competent to deputies named and removable for unfaithful conduct by themselves immediately." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:487

I honestly couldn't believe he was making the 'gun control is not disarmament' argument to begin with - or that he was claiming to be oblivious to the chorus.

Well, believe it. You both know exactly what I'm talking about. You know that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban disarmed nobody, other than those hoping to torture the English language in the same way that "torture" is no more than "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques".

You both also know that there is no serious movement --- and none is reflected in those links --- to take anybody guns away from anybody via increased gun safety regulations that are being called for (including by the vast majority of NRA members.)

If you kids would like to get together and enjoy the fact that you've finally found someone who agrees with your tortured use of language, logic and reason, I certainly hope it will be bring you a bit of holiday cheer!

Howdy! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering if you knew where I could find a captcha plugin for my comment form?
I'm using the same blog platform as yours and I'm having trouble
finding one? Thanks a lot!